The Arizona Supreme Court recently ruled that the Election Procedures Manual (EPM) does not need to follow the procedures outlined in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). This decision, filed on July 17, 2026, affects how election rules are established in Arizona, particularly concerning the upcoming elections. The ruling has implications for the Republican National Committee (RNC) and other political entities involved in the electoral process.
The case, titled Republican National Committee v. Fontes, arose from a dispute between the RNC and Adrian Fontes, the Arizona Secretary of State. The RNC challenged the procedures used to publish the EPM, claiming that the Secretary did not follow the necessary APA requirements. The court's decision clarifies the relationship between the EPM and the APA, which governs how state agencies create and publish rules.
In this case, the RNC, along with the Republican Party of Arizona and the Yavapai County Republican Party, filed a complaint against Fontes, asserting that the EPM should adhere to the APA's rulemaking process. They argued that the Secretary's 15-day public comment period was insufficient and that the EPM contained provisions conflicting with state and federal laws. The case was first heard in the Maricopa County Superior Court, where the court ruled in favor of Fontes, stating that the EPM was not subject to the APA.
The RNC then appealed the decision, and the Arizona Court of Appeals initially reversed the lower court's ruling, stating that the EPM met the definition of a rule under the APA and should follow its procedures. However, the Arizona Supreme Court later vacated the Court of Appeals' opinion and reinstated the lower court's decision, concluding that the EPM is not subject to the APA.
Justice William Montgomery authored the opinion for the Arizona Supreme Court, joined by Chief Justice Timmer, Vice Chief Justice Lopez, and Justices Bolick, Beene, King, and Cruz. The court ruled that the EPM is governed by a separate statutory framework established by the Arizona Legislature, specifically under A.R.S. § 16-452, which provides a distinct process for developing and issuing the EPM. The court stated, "The EPM is, therefore, not invalid for failing to comply with the APA’s procedures." This ruling emphasizes that the EPM operates under its own set of rules, separate from the APA.
The court's decision has significant implications for how election procedures are managed in Arizona. By affirming that the EPM is not subject to the APA, the ruling allows the Secretary of State to continue issuing the EPM without adhering to the more extensive APA requirements, such as the longer public comment periods and additional procedural steps. This means that the EPM can be developed and published more rapidly, which is crucial as elections approach.
Furthermore, the ruling sets a precedent regarding the relationship between the EPM and the APA, indicating that other election-related rules may also be exempt from APA procedures. This could affect future challenges to election regulations and how they are implemented in Arizona.
Looking ahead, the RNC and other parties involved in the case may consider whether to pursue further legal action, although details were not available in the court filing regarding any potential appeals. The ruling may also prompt discussions about the need for legislative changes to clarify the relationship between the EPM and the APA, particularly as election laws continue to evolve.
In summary, the Arizona Supreme Court's ruling in Republican National Committee v. Fontes clarifies that the Election Procedures Manual is not subject to the Administrative Procedure Act, allowing for a more streamlined process in establishing election rules. This decision has important implications for the management of elections in Arizona and could influence future legal challenges regarding election procedures.